Jump to content
BANGKOK
Sign in to follow this  
webfact

Twin evils are battling to bring down Thailand

Recommended Posts

Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. the sooner Thailand recognizes this the better off it will be. Every vote counts the same whether you like it or not. Your outlook might seem more enlightened to yourself, in fact it would be surprising if it didn't, but if it doesn't match the majority you will just have to hone your powers of persuasion for the next election.

There needs to be checks and balances and means to stop malicious persecution by those in power and controlling their use of public funds. But every democratically elected government can not be brought down from the streets. This is a "tyranny of the minority". A far more dangerous thing.

Simple majority rule cannot be the mechanism for every decision. That's why there are constitutions, charters, by-laws... Otherwise, mob rule becomes the order of the day. BUT, if a no-confidence vote can unseat a government, in line with constitutional process, and if legitimate peaceful protest by the public can influence & perhaps even drive such a no-confidence vote, then one would have to have one's head buried deeply in the sand to not recognize that YES, even an elected government indeed CAN be "brought down", as you put it, "from the streets". Much preferable that way in fact than from the muzzle of a gun, if you ask me. Edited by hawker9000
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. the sooner Thailand recognizes this the better off it will be. Every vote counts the same whether you like it or not. Your outlook might seem more enlightened to yourself, in fact it would be surprising if it didn't, but if it doesn't match the majority you will just have to hone your powers of persuasion for the next election.

There needs to be checks and balances and means to stop malicious persecution by those in power and controlling their use of public funds. But every democratically elected government can not be brought down from the streets. This is a "tyranny of the minority". A far more dangerous thing.

Simple majority rule cannot be the mechanism for every decision. That's why there are constitutions, charters, by-laws... Otherwise, mob rule becomes the order of the day. BUT, if a no-confidence vote can unseat a government, in line with constitutional process, and if legitimate peaceful protest by the public can influence & perhaps even drive such a no-confidence vote, then one would have to have one's head buried deeply in the sand to not recognize that YES, even an elected government indeed CAN be "brought down", as you put it, "from the streets". Much preferable that way in fact than from the muzzle of a gun, if you ask me.

So we are in agreement that if a legitimately elected government follows the constitution and,as I put it,is restrained by checks and balances from abuse of power then it should lawfully be able to protect itself from those who seek to overthrow the legitimate wishes of the majority of the citizenry.

Peaceful protest should be allowed and even protected and encouraged. Having government agencies invaded and calls for the very abolition of democracy itself is not a "peaceful protest". It is an attempt to enforce the will of a minority by intimidation on the majority of people in a country and undermine a legitimately elected government.

If you don't like your government and it's policies then propose a superior platform and present it to your people at the ballot box. Accept their decision with respect and humility as befitting a public servant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the bland, unsupported assertions like "corruption has got steadily worse since Thaksin...".

It was bad before, it was bad during, it carried on as if nothing had changed during the Dems' period at the helm, it's bad now, and it will be bad for the foreseeable future. Until the voters understand that a deep-rooted culture of nepotism and corruption is at fault - practised by pretty much anyone in a position of power - and not by a few headline-grabbing individuals, nothing will ever change. People are just so naive, and easily manipulated. And not just the Thais, going by the polemics on this forum.

Only anecdotal evidence but the last time I was stopped on my scooter (11 am, wearing a helmet, with Canadian license in English)

I was asked to produce my international drivers license. Fine 600 baht cash on the spot or 600 baht at the police station. He was

not going to be happy with a 100-200 baht shakedown. After bargaining he went as low as 400. I gave him 300 in his hand and left.

So in my experience the po po are getting greedier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. the sooner Thailand recognizes this the better off it will be. Every vote counts the same whether you like it or not. Your outlook might seem more enlightened to yourself, in fact it would be surprising if it didn't, but if it doesn't match the majority you will just have to hone your powers of persuasion for the next election.

There needs to be checks and balances and means to stop malicious persecution by those in power and controlling their use of public funds. But every democratically elected government can not be brought down from the streets. This is a "tyranny of the minority". A far more dangerous thing.

Simple majority rule cannot be the mechanism for every decision. That's why there are constitutions, charters, by-laws... Otherwise, mob rule becomes the order of the day. BUT, if a no-confidence vote can unseat a government, in line with constitutional process, and if legitimate peaceful protest by the public can influence & perhaps even drive such a no-confidence vote, then one would have to have one's head buried deeply in the sand to not recognize that YES, even an elected government indeed CAN be "brought down", as you put it, "from the streets". Much preferable that way in fact than from the muzzle of a gun, if you ask me.

So we are in agreement that if a legitimately elected government follows the constitution and,as I put it,is restrained by checks and balances from abuse of power then it should lawfully be able to protect itself from those who seek to overthrow the legitimate wishes of the majority of the citizenry.

Peaceful protest should be allowed and even protected and encouraged. Having government agencies invaded and calls for the very abolition of democracy itself is not a "peaceful protest". It is an attempt to enforce the will of a minority by intimidation on the majority of people in a country and undermine a legitimately elected government.

If you don't like your government and it's policies then propose a superior platform and present it to your people at the ballot box. Accept their decision with respect and humility as befitting a public servant.

A lot of damage can be done in an electoral term - if the people are dissatisfied with the performance of the government and/or their lack of ability to fulfil promises that got them into power (their mandate to govern) - then the people have a right, if not a duty, to push for early elections. Then what if that government refuses? Citizens should sit back and watch the future of their country going down the toilet? When the courts are being ignored (even the constitutional court), parliamentary procedures are being bypassed and those checks and balances ignored, and the opposition has no ability to stop it - what then? Whether we agree or disagree with what is going on, there has to be a point where it is justified that the people stand up and remove a government that is unwanted and can not be removed by other means - the natural result of which should be more elections and then the real test as to how many people agree with either side - and a chance for allegiances, leadership and policies to change.

Yes, I know Suthep is not calling for elections - I do not agree with his desire for a (temporary) totalitarian state either. However, it is the people that count and two votes a decade, and then free reign to the victors to do whatever they like, is not a democracy either - and thus not desirable in a democratic country.

//Edit: Typo

Edited by wolf5370

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the bland, unsupported assertions like "corruption has got steadily worse since Thaksin...".

It was bad before, it was bad during, it carried on as if nothing had changed during the Dems' period at the helm, it's bad now, and it will be bad for the foreseeable future. Until the voters understand that a deep-rooted culture of nepotism and corruption is at fault - practised by pretty much anyone in a position of power - and not by a few headline-grabbing individuals, nothing will ever change. People are just so naive, and easily manipulated. And not just the Thais, going by the polemics on this forum.

Only anecdotal evidence but the last time I was stopped on my scooter (11 am, wearing a helmet, with Canadian license in English)

I was asked to produce my international drivers license. Fine 600 baht cash on the spot or 600 baht at the police station. He was

not going to be happy with a 100-200 baht shakedown. After bargaining he went as low as 400. I gave him 300 in his hand and left.

So in my experience the po po are getting greedier.

You were ripped off anyway - assuming you had a tourist visa/entry permit - an English language license does not need a IDL here (that is the law - as posted here many, many times). If you were on a Non Im, then tough luck as you need a Thai DL regardless.

I got stopped last year and had left mine at home - 400 baht fine (law says you have to have it with you when driving).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.6 billion? Then let's call it most other 'democracies' then rather then 'countries'.

People shouldn't be given the right to run a country to the ground just because they won an election. Liberals like to cry about coups and such but this country will go deeper into the toilet if this government runs it for a few more years. Sometimes as in the case of Thailand, it's actually better to take a step in the other direction. Doesn't make it 'wrong' just because liberalism doesn't like it when the military runs things for a while.

In Thailand, the checks and balances come in the form of the people on the streets and the army. In most other countries, a corrupt and ineffectual government like Yingluck's would have gone down long ago and a whole bunch of them would have been prosecuted for all the crap they've done. Since that's not happening, it's up to the people to bring down this government. Failing which, the army hopefully will.

Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. the sooner Thailand recognizes this the better off it will be. Every vote counts the same whether you like it or not. Your outlook might seem more enlightened to yourself, in fact it would be surprising if it didn't, but if it doesn't match the majority you will just have to hone your powers of persuasion for the next election.
There needs to be checks and balances and means to stop malicious persecution by those in power and controlling their use of public funds. But every democratically elected government can not be brought down from the streets. This is a "tyranny of the minority". A far more dangerous thing.


In "most other countries"? 2.6 billion people live under authoritarian regimes today. A lot of other countries and so-called democracies suppress freedoms in one way or another. Corruption is to be found everywhere, including in the 'enlightened' West. And we've had the benefit of decades, even centuries of trial and error, to reach the point we're at now.

Progress can be painfully slow, but one thing is certain the kind of putsch you advocate - whether from the people or the army - will be yet another step in the wrong direction.



Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Anand warned that if the culture of corruption is allowed to continue unchecked, the country could be heading for disaster."

This is exactly why 50% of the govt must be "SELECTED" and 50% elected.

cheque = bank balance.

This half-elected / half-appointed Seant is only a feable force to outbalance a lower house which is majorized by a party. It has an "undemocratic" weakness: who appoints the Senators (and who appoints the appointers etc.) and what are the criteria.

I would suggest to abandon the centralized political and administrative system in Thailand and give the regions and provinces more autonomy.

Each Senator would then be elected in his province and would then represent the interests of his province. If he becomes a "brown nose" to the party ruling the lower house, his constituency will (hopefully) not reelect him.

A positive side-effect would be a calming down of the situation in the South.

Edited by dominique355

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My father told me you should vote for the good of the country and what was right. My teachers in school said you should

vote selfishly and vote for whoever promises you the most and be very selfish. Never did agree but that is the two sides

as far as I am concerned. Here in Thailand I see a fairly recent poll report 70% of Thais believe corruption is OK as long

as it benefits them. I think most people with a basic education understands the rice program and other popular policies

are not good for the country. But they also know both sides are corrupt. Some individuals are greedier than others but they

just want a share or the corrupt pie. So if you are going to pay me 40-50% over the world rate for rice, rebate the tax

on cars, tell hospitals they have to accept you as patients for 30 baht and not properly compensate the hospitals who

cares, I get mine. Off course it all comes crashing down eventually but that is the future and the voters live in the now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Anand warned that if the culture of corruption is allowed to continue unchecked, the country could be heading for disaster."

This is exactly why 50% of the govt must be "SELECTED" and 50% elected.

cheque = bank balance.

This half-elected / half-appointed Seant is only a feable force to outbalance a lower house which is majorized by a party. It has an "undemocratic" weakness: who appoints the Senators (and who appoints the appointers etc.) and what are the criteria.

I would suggest to abandon the centralized political and administrative system in Thailand and give the regions and provinces more autonomy.

Each Senator would then be elected in his province and would then represent the interests of his province. If he becomes a "brown nose" to the party ruling the lower house, his constitency will (hopefully) not reelect him.

A positive side-effect would be a calming down of the situation in the South.

Well, yes, reforming how and who becomes an appointed senator is a reasonable discussion, their term of sitting and the such. Did you see the story yesterday of the appointed senators brother apparently being up to his eyeballs in the blue diamond story. I am not one for tarring a whole family with a brush, but what a coincidence.

However, the completely elected senate route was gone down before by Thaksin and it ended up becoming a place filled with the relatives of those sitting in the lower house all rubber stamping the laws that were passed by the parliament. So there is a problem with a completely elected upper house because it doesn't fulfill its role of being part of the check and balance of the system. Now, why it isn't written in the consitution very clearly exactly what the role of the senate should be and that any changes to the constitution to reduce its role are to be prevented I don't know.

The point of the senate isn't necessarily to represent the will of the people at all. THe point of the sentate is to make sure that laws are written in a legal and worthwhile fashion. Anyone still wondering how that law to ban alcohol sales between 2 and 5 got through? That was at a time when the senate was just a rubber stamp for the lower house. No one even bothered to ask if the law was practical and enforceable. So there is also the advantage that the senate being a proper check also prevents nonsense laws being passed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. the sooner Thailand recognizes this the better off it will be. Every vote counts the same whether you like it or not. Your outlook might seem more enlightened to yourself, in fact it would be surprising if it didn't, but if it doesn't match the majority you will just have to hone your powers of persuasion for the next election.

There needs to be checks and balances and means to stop malicious persecution by those in power and controlling their use of public funds. But every democratically elected government can not be brought down from the streets. This is a "tyranny of the minority". A far more dangerous thing.

Simple majority rule cannot be the mechanism for every decision. That's why there are constitutions, charters, by-laws... Otherwise, mob rule becomes the order of the day. BUT, if a no-confidence vote can unseat a government, in line with constitutional process, and if legitimate peaceful protest by the public can influence & perhaps even drive such a no-confidence vote, then one would have to have one's head buried deeply in the sand to not recognize that YES, even an elected government indeed CAN be "brought down", as you put it, "from the streets". Much preferable that way in fact than from the muzzle of a gun, if you ask me.
So we are in agreement that if a legitimately elected government follows the constitution and,as I put it,is restrained by checks and balances from abuse of power then it should lawfully be able to protect itself from those who seek to overthrow the legitimate wishes of the majority of the citizenry.

Peaceful protest should be allowed and even protected and encouraged. Having government agencies invaded and calls for the very abolition of democracy itself is not a "peaceful protest". It is an attempt to enforce the will of a minority by intimidation on the majority of people in a country and undermine a legitimately elected government.

If you don't like your government and it's policies then propose a superior platform and present it to your people at the ballot box. Accept their decision with respect and humility as befitting a public servant.

You're caught up in, and simply repeating, all the hyperbole of the moment. You make it sound like there are enemy militia rampaging through all the most hallowed halls defecating and spraypainting profanities on the walls and hunting down MPs and senators to cut their throats. WHICH is pretty much how the embattled incumbents are trying to make it sound as well. It is in fact much more of a legitimate protest than the busses full of folks from up north & frak knows where being paid to come to Bangkok and play act the role of counter-protester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Anand warned that if the culture of corruption is allowed to continue unchecked, the country could be heading for disaster."

This is exactly why 50% of the govt must be "SELECTED" and 50% elected.

cheque = bank balance.

I can't agree with that 50% SELECTED and 50% ELECTED.

That would still not prevent the 50% "SELECTED"(by the voters) Buying their "SELECTION"and probably easier to do than buying "ELECTED" Votes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicialns are corrupt the world over....why do you think they want to get elected....power brings money....money brings power....greed and corruption follow.

That is why someone who wants a position of power should never get it....it should be given to one who will do a good job...then get time off for good behaviour after doing a good job and be released from the responsibility.

"Given" by who?

For democracies that are under fire for graft and corruption by their politicians there is an easy answer that no-one seems to have tried.

Public corporations are required to have their finances examined and publicly reported on by an independent financial auditor. The need arises from a requirement of investors and providers of finance to have some faith in the reliability of those corporations from a financial viewpoint as that increases the confidence of everyone in the entire system (yes - it is not foolproof, as 2008 demonstrated, but I would argue that it has in general brought significant benefits over 200 years in the 'first world').

A similar requirement should be imposed on all who seek public office - an audit and full disclosure of their financial position annually, plus an examination of whether there was any undisclosed conflict of interest in the issues on which they voted. Those who are not prepared to be transparent in their entire personal affairs are not worthy of our collective trust IMO. There are plenty of us out there who would love to serve their country and do a decent honest job and who would have no problem in being completely open about their dealings. I'm sure that even some existing politicians fall into that category.

Disclosure

Entirely my own views. I was a public company auditor at one stage in my career and although I stopped doing that in my forties I get a small pension from the firm in which I did it. That pension is partly dependent on the continued viability of that firm. That firm (nor any other audit firm) has not promoted such propositions for 'politician audits' AFAIK.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It absolutely amazes me that there are actually people who actually advocate taking the right to choose their government away from the people. Somehow they seem to believe that the "selectors" and "selected" will somehow offer greater protection from corruption. This despite history's numerous examples of the dangers of putting power in the hands of small numbers of people.

Sadly it would seem the "peaceful protesters" are showing their true colors as the seek to use violence and intimidation in an attempt to bring down an elected government and impose the will of a minority.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It absolutely amazes me that there are actually people who actually advocate taking the right to choose their government away from the people. Somehow they seem to believe that the "selectors" and "selected" will somehow offer greater protection from corruption. This despite history's numerous examples of the dangers of putting power in the hands of small numbers of people.

Sadly it would seem the "peaceful protesters" are showing their true colors as the seek to use violence and intimidation in an attempt to bring down an elected government and impose the will of a minority.

And actually what actual current evidence do you actually have that the actual protesters actually represent a minority? Actually, that is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It absolutely amazes me that there are actually people who actually advocate taking the right to choose their government away from the people. Somehow they seem to believe that the "selectors" and "selected" will somehow offer greater protection from corruption. This despite history's numerous examples of the dangers of putting power in the hands of small numbers of people.

Sadly it would seem the "peaceful protesters" are showing their true colors as the seek to use violence and intimidation in an attempt to bring down an elected government and impose the will of a minority.

And actually what actual current evidence do you actually have that the actual protesters actually represent a minority? Actually, that is.

Counting actual votes in an actual election is acknowledged worldwide as expressing the wishes of the actual majority. Therefore, those who oppose the government elected by an actual majority would constitute an actual minority. Actually :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...